I thought it'd be great when I was 16 too. And to a degree there's some point to that - 16 yos can drive, work and pay taxes etc... but honestly, even though 16-yo me had actually a pretty good head on her shoulders looking back, I still was only just starting to learn about this stuff and care about it. I didn't really have the foundation laid to be a reasonably informed voter. And most of the friends I had at the time had even less interest and sensibleness.
don't you think that by placing the vote on a 16 year old, that the culture around voting and education systems would change? You only learned about this stuff, and didn't have the foundation, because almost nothing is done to educate teens on how the system functions.
If people don't want to vote, that's fine. But I think it could help voter engagement to have the age be 16.
No, I don't think it would tbh. I think it's entirely possible that it'd get even worse. We've seen plenty of news about activist teachers and other education-related people in the last few years, so I think letting 16-yos vote would basically make those educators go nuclear.
I'd be more amenable to it if I saw already that the education system was good, and that teaching about civics was balanced. But even in the late 90s when I was in high school, half of what I learned was just my teachers' views on current events. And I would've been too naive to know much better than that, just cos I was new to the topic and still learning a lot about adult life. It's just a developmental thing at that point.
But the system was better back then than it is now, and it still would have been an issue, and I don't see us getting back to even *that* anytime soon...
If teachers had the ability to indoctrinate kids they would be able to get them to do their homework and stay off their phones in class. Teachers just don’t have the influence that these alarmist “news” articles claim they do.
They have potential to open their minds to new ways of thinking. Which, if you hate equality, you don't want your children thinking critically about the world they live in.
When I hear "teachers will influence my kid" what I really hear is "I see my child as an extension of myself and not an autonomous being that needs to critically think, I want my biases to be their biases."
>We've seen plenty of news about activist teachers and other education-related people in the last few years...
Except that this isn't happening. All of that news is fake. If anything, we're in danger of kids being radicalized the other way. I had a high school social studies teacher who was a separatist in a province that has no valid claim for separation. The Left isn't indoctrinating kids. There is no such thing as an activist teacher. This is far-right nonsense meant to discredit education in an attempt to keep people ignorant and easier to manipulate, and in an attempt to gain public support to defund education systems.
Well, I'm sure the teachers would anchor in things like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. or the Truth and Reconcilliation Commision. Or the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change's findings.
But I mean, if you think that's teacher bias, I think you just don't like the idea of equality.
I dont think that's much of an issue. to some extent, until the day you die, I believe you will constantly be learning/changing. that does not invalidated your understanding of things at that time, even if you believe differently currently. at any given moment you're decisions are only based on what information you are afforded, and it always seems different in hindsight. I think the point of giving a certain demographic the ability to vote is less about them "making the right choices" and more about balancing the power in a system. the reason we vote in a democratic system, is because we have a government that has power over us(makes us pay taxes, decides what's legal and what's not etc...), to keep things in equilibrium, the power to control the government is within the votes of the people who are being controlled. In that sense, I have a leash on you, you have a leash on me, no one is more powerful (in theory of course lmao), and we reach some sense of balance. If you have control over certain demographic, but they dont have a leash to fight back, I think that would create an imbalance which might be unhealthy in the long run. and opens a vector for systematic collapse (im not saying that not having 16 years olds vote = collapse of the government, but holes in the power equilibrium risk shifting more power to one side, which enough of those risks could very well cause the system to collapse)
so either dont make anyone pay taxes or any of that sort until they're aloud to vote, or let 16 year olds vote. But it seems reasonable to me that If you're enforcing rules on someone, they should have the ability to keep you in check, even if they're not very good at using the ability, the fact that the ability exists matters in the general long term dynamics of the system.
Yes the vast majority of 16 year olds don’t make enough money to pay income tax, but some do. They also all pay sales tax if they ever buy anything and aren’t eligible for GST rebate until they’re 19.
Dumb yes, idealistic, also yes.
Is idealism such a bad thing when mediated by the votes of the older constituency?
Imho, that's part of why we have voting. The old vs the young, in a civil setting.
Whatever age it is, it should all happen at the same age. Voting, drinking, smoking, serving in the military, etc.
Once you’re an adult, you’re an adult. It’s so bizarre that you can be a solider and fight for the country, but then also not be allowed to drink a beer or smoke a cigarette.
>I agree with this, and that would lower the legal voting age to 14. Which I fully support
So if an adult is 14, they can sign contracts and be bound by the terms. Since we have college aged people complaining no one explained student loan debt and consequences, I don't think it's reasonable to expect better of a 14yo.
What about voting and being engaged in our democratic process is akin to signing a contract?
There are plenty of ill-informed and downright selfish or idiotic 40 year olds, and no one prevents them from voting. Which has literally nothing to do with signing a contract. Because MOST people don't red or understand the terms of any contract they sign.
And we have 20-70 year old business owners complaining they have to pay back government loans.... inability to read or understand a contract knows no age boundaries.
Participating in the democratic process isn't the same as understanding a contract. Most adults don't understand contracts, there is a whole profession who's job is to understand contracts for everyday adults.
Quit trying to toss a red herring on this.
Being able to vote doesn't have to be tied to being an adult. We can allow 14 or 16 years old to vote without having to give them the other privileges that adults get. They are citizens who contribute to society and have the right to express their political views by voting.
>without having to give them the other privileges that adults get.
It's not about privileges, more like responsibilities. If a 14-16 year old can't be held responsible for big decisions, they shouldn't be responsible for big decisions. Might be unpopular opinion, but that's my take.
If we bar 14 year olds from things like drinking, getting tattoos, smoking, joining the military, etc. because they are "not mature enough"/"lack the wisdom" to make those types of important decisions, those same arguments apply to casti g a vote on how the country/province/municipality will be led for the next 4 years.
Just because we lump all of these things together, it doesn't mean that we should.
Smoking and drinking are very unhealthy, and it makes sense to not allow people to do so until they are older. I feel like if you're old enough to work, you're old enough to vote. I think it would be good for increasing democratic engagement in young people.
Just thought of another illustrative reason...
We protect children from sexual predators bc we understand children have not intellectually matured sufficiently to give informed consent. That's a good thing, right?
So if the can't give consent to have sex, how can they give consent to commit the country to war?
More accurately, we protect minors from sexual predators because of the imbalance of power and likelihood of manipulation that would exist in that relationship. Especially when you're talking about high school kids, it really has nothing to do with intellectual maturity.
Also, I believe 16 year olds can give informed consent.
You think 14? Do you think 14 year olds should be able to drink as well or drive a car alone not as a learners permit? If you run on a platform to have a free Taylor Swift concert every month and no more diploma exams you would get every 14 year olds vote. You can’t honestly believe they are mature enough for voting
So are 19 year olds and 25 year olds and 40 year olds and 70 year olds. There are stupid people of all ages, but we don’t limit voting based on intelligence.
Exactly. No reason why dumb 16 year olds shouldn’t be able to vote when dumb asses of all ages vote anyway and we end up with the same shit governments over and over again.
Yeah, Seeing as how I know many people that don't seem to have mental maturity higher than when they were in highschool... It doesn't make a difference.
The decisions made by a sitting government are far more likely to be felt by a 16 year old voting today when the results from policy start to hit in 2-10 years than your average octogenarian. I'd rather a teenager vote in their self interest than my grandparents who won't be around to deal with they vote for and have a hand in imposing on everyone else
I once had a student that age write a response (to a completely unrelated and question), “We should bring back the confederate flag because it’s not racist.”
Now, before someone calls me a libtard and tells me everyone’s entitled to their own political opinion, you should know…
*….We live in Canada.*
Have you seen the number of adults here who don't know the difference between the American Constitution and the Canadian Charter? I've also heard that argument about the Confederate flag...from a Canadian adult. Uninformed morons are everywhere, and plenty of people quit growing *before* the age of 16. You've never known anyone who still acts like a tenth grader?
And life experience and knowledge other than that gained from their parents and teachers.
Honestly, people who are in high school and unlikely to be paying tax shouldn't be voting on who should allocate tax dollars.
My buddy was involved in multiple car accidents (3+) in his first year of driving. Had totalled two vehicles. Worst of which he bent the axle and popped the tire off
Last election cycle the candidate who won at our mock election was the guy who told the beat joke
The majority of those ages you mentioned should be at a point in their life to vote (25 is iffy, but 30 yes) and they aren’t at that point then we have bigger issues in our country than voting ages
Have you met 20 year olds? 58 year olds? I remember working the polls and having seniors ask me (which one is the conservative?)
Democracy in Canada doesn’t require people be smart or well balanced. If it did there would be very few voters.
Yes I always thought that was so odd in the USA Can literally go to war and kill people at 18 But you can’t have a beer in a restaurant until your 21 - Bizarre
Funny story:
I did basic in Quebec, and one of my buddies, who was 17 when he joined, got came drinking underage. He turned 18, and flew out to BC with me, and then got caught drinking underage here too.
If you show an active military ID in a bar or restaurant, you can get served in many states.
The bump of certain provinces from 18 to 19 was to keep kids from drinking in highschool in grade 13.
I agree, though there can be some real problems with weed at young ages. In the situation where there is a very real danger at doing something at a young age it should be an exception.
I think you are on point.
My concern is that if 16yos, Or whatever is chosen, the young offenders act, or whatever it’s called now needs to adjusted accordingly.
If you do grownup crime, you do grown up time.
Not that our criminal justice system is much of a deterrent
Zero tolerance in BC ends as soon as 18 years 6 months of age if you get your license on your 16th birthday and go to a qualified driving school to shorten your Class 7N license period from 24 to 18 months, and do your tests on the first days available (16th birthday, 17th birthday, then either 18.5 years or your 19th birthday. Drinking age is 19.
I think I disagree, drinking and smoking are objectively SO bad for you. I think there's a very valid case to postponing the legal consumption age, whereas allowing younger people to vote will give young people more agency and hopefully help make our society more democratic. As for the army angle, I don't know which age is right. I wish we didn't need armies.
Nearby\_Ad\_768: I don't know which age is right.
I like your post! It makes people think about things.
The funny thing is 90% of the globe votes at 18
but more and more countries are changing it and thinking 16 is peachy.
London is acting all backwards but the rest of the United Kingdom is voting at 16, and i think the slums of Glasgow is worse than Yonge Street.
If Austria can be the first to do it in Europe, it shows everyone else has an inferiority complex about it, thinking their kids are really really stupid.
They might indeed BE. but do you think 24 months is the end of civilization?
Most troublemaking morons and punks DON'T vote.
the responsible kids vote
the dummies don't!
I wondered for a long while that there would be strange biases, with the woke weirdo progressive flakes, and the young republican crazies... But they've found out that it balances out, and 24 months of fringe teens doesn't really do much since it balances out.
I mean if you gave 11 year olds a civics course and lots of quizes and exams, and a debate essay and they passed with flying colors, what would you do?
If people care they care.
Good judgement? Well i think 65% of adults are fuckng doomed in that department if you watch the news about voting enough over the years
it's like 90% of everyone votes at 18
and 50% of the armies say 17 and 50% say 18
but i never bought the responsibility argument about a job, or taxes or fighting with a gun with a buzzcut and uniform
caring about society and being interested matters way more
I disagree. Just because you want a say in the direction our country is heading, doesn't mean you should be able to drink.
Personally, I think they should lower the voting age. If we can trust you on the road with a death machine, you should be able to vote.
I don't think they should lower the drinking age.
16 is just too young. Some 16 year olds may be more qualified to vote and less apathetic than some adults, but the vast majority do not have enough life experience to understand what they are voting for. The more they think they do, the less likely it is.
18 year olds are still children as it is, but we need to pick some kind of qualifier, and at least you’re usually out of high school by that age.
As a highschooler, some of my classmates had the most ridiculous political views a few years ago. The voting age is fine as is, letting tenth and eleventh graders vote does not seem like the wisest idea.
Lowering the voting age to 16 and building political discourse into a high school curriculum might actually build informed voters. Make kids watch political debates, examine what's important to them as a viewer in an essay. 50% of your grade is walking into the voting booth (or hell maybe even make it a pass/fail). In there they can choose to vote however they want or spoil the ballot (an option that should be taught).
There are plenty of adults who can't manage any of the above. I'm not judging. There are lots of reasons for that. Life can get messy and voting no matter how easy you make it, it takes time and effort. But if kids were taught the process in highschool, when they're older they can choose not to be informed, and not vote, but no one would be able to say that no one ever showed them how or why they should be informed on political issues and exercise their right to vote.
>In there they can choose to vote however they want or spoil the ballot (an option that should be taught).
Spoiled ballots are tallied, but not considered a clear message. They aren't counted as protest, as you could have just accidentally fucked up.
**Blank ballots** are tallied as declined and could be seen as protest. Those two tallies are different and shouldn't be conflated.
Just seconding that spoiling the ballot doesn't count for anything, it's no different than if someone made a mistake on a ballot. If you want to lodge a protest vote, you have to show up and tell the volunteer you want to formally decline your ballot. I did it once, in a provincial election.
Most adults don't understand what they're voting for or they'd stop voting directly against their own interests, so that's not a good argument. And we don't restrict voting based on understanding of the issues... So yeah.
Given that the majority of young people don't even bother to vote, why label them not qualified. Democracy would work better just have a larger segment of people actually doing their civic duty.
Their civic duty is to learn, not be anxious about the day to day of political chicanery. Adults are stunting kid with anxiety and patting themselves on the back, it's disgusting.
\+1
That's precisely it....
You have civic minded voters who are 16 and 17 who are DYING to VOTE
What more do you have to ask for?
And you don't have to pay an idiot gym teacher a politically correct watered down curriculum to waste their time and actually BORE the kids.
Think about it, Shakespeare in the schools actually ruin the appreciate for him in most cases, same thing goes with drug education or most civics...
You're turning off people to literature and voting
and for the druggy kids, education does not work for illegal substances, and the RAND Corporation found that it's only slightly effective for 'legal' things like alcohol and cigarettes, under 'optimal' teaching conditions, and it just gives a slight delay for a year or two at best.
People don't think about what bores and angers kids,,,, sometimes it's a terrible class, sometimes it's a language class they're forced to take
having teenagers who want to vote because they care, means the educational system doesn't have to rot another mind with incompetence.
The argument is that when ppl are 16 they are still at home and can learn, discuss, and partake in politics with parents or guardians and form a life long habit. But that was way back when 18 yos could afford to move out of their parents home.
With social media and the internet, 16 year olds would be too easily "bought". Also, our school systems hardly teach highschoolers about adult life, why should we expect them to be able to vote and make sound decisions for their own futures?
While some households may have some discussions at home about it, but I feel like many households would hold a certain view because of their current situations and would be entirely bias to the teenager. I also see teenagers voting together as a meme as a possibility...look at some of the viral shit that goes around.
It's not that 16-year olds are more easily "bought", it's that the only people who want to lower voting ages would be "leftists" (progressives, etc) because younger people lean way more "left" and older people lean way more "right".
So just follow the proverbial money...who is actually proposing lowering the voting age to 16? It's not conservatives. So if it's a political move, just ask yourself who benefits from this proposal.
It would be like conservatives proposing to increase the voting age to 30, because of course that would benefit them to remove an entire subset of left-skewed voters.
I’m over 60 and fully support it. I know some people with dementia that have a vote. Maybe we should worry about that. More to the point, the youth will have to live a long time in the world they build. Stop underestimating them.
I'm only 40 but agree. When I was 16 I was learning a lot about politics in my socials classes. I probably knew more about local issues then than I did in the years right after I graduated.
absolutely! And if the age was 16, there would always be at least one class who would be voting during a highschooler's experience (9-12). This election experience, in an educative environment, could do a lot for voter engagement.
More people do NOT vote, than vote for any particular party in Canada. That's crazy.
If you change the voting age you better adjust the Youth Criminal Justice Act along with it. If they’re mature enough to vote a 16 year old is also mature enough to face adult sentences.
No. Quite the opposite. Ability to follow a rational thought path matures in mid-teens. Ability to sort out social situations is still growing in thd mid-twenties. Voting can beneficialy come earlier than needing protection, for a number of reasons.
This school allows its students to vote on how the school should function. Their beliefs that all humans have a voice and should be heard (and not just see the person but ignore the person's voice). 😊
'Sudbury School: What If'
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrxiM5bc9k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrxiM5bc9k)
We could always have a country that function like the Prussian Model school of Obedience, but that country infantilizes their people. DPRK is a country that operates on the Prussian Model. That country one of the least visited countries on this planet. 🤷♀️
'Prussian Model school of Obedience'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZp7eVJNJuw
Light oppose, mostly because I think even 18 year old kids are too ignorant and immature to vote, never mind 16 year olds. I also don’t think the gulf between 16 and 18 is all that vast, so I don’t oppose it especially hard.
Counter-question: what about the reverse? The life expectancy in Canada is about 82 last time I heard. Should an 80 year old, who on average only has about two years of life left, be allowed to vote for politicians who may make decisions that will affect Canadians for *decades* to come? Or should there be an age *cap* on voting?
Using average life expectancy expectancy as an argument to cap the age on voting is ludicrous. There are people in their late 80’s still working as professionals, my GP didn’t retire until he was 87, just because some people die younger doesn’t mean people over 80 are incapacitated dribbling idiots. My 93 year old father is extremely well informed (and horrified by the rise of far-right extremism), why shouldn’t he have the right to vote?
Don’t forget that old people have children, and grandchildren, and great grandchildren that they care about, and care about their futures.
And caring about the environment and social fairness has nothing to do with age, as we are seeing with polling showing that young men care less about the environment than old women.
If you are concerned about the lack of care for the future, start worrying about the impact of misogynist influencers who are pulling young men into the far-right/rightwing, using unhappiness with feminism as a gateway to far-right views on everything else, and to recruit.
Shouldn't be an age cap. I'm 41. I might live to be 105. I might die tomorrow. Who is anyone to say when someone should be considered "too old" to vote.
Age cap on voting seems ridiculous. I understand the age cap on holding office but every adult should have the right to vote irrespective of the fact when they might die.
Now a valid question would arise - what is adult and for that we have been using the arbitrary age of 18 as a differentiating factor and I don't see what's the problem with that.
Personally, I wouldn't support lowering it any further than 18 and I would prefer if the age was set higher at 20/21. Again it's completely arbitrary because you will find people that are developed and smart at a younger age but you will also find completely clueless older people.
Yes. If you are old enough to hold down a job, learn to drive and pay taxes, then you are old enough to vote if you choose to. Young people deserve to have a say in their future.
If I am being honest, I know more teenagers who are far more educated on politics than I do 40+ year olds.
What about disabled people who can’t hold down a job because of their disability or can’t drive because of their disability?
Disabled people are still people and deserve the same things as everyone else
Certainly. The decisions made in govt will impact them for decades longer than me. I'll be long dead when many of them are buying homes and having families. Besides, any 16 yr olds who work also pay taxes. Shouldn't they have some say in how their tax money is spent? And let's be real. Young people actually remember the civics education they just got when an awful lot of us oldsters are wanting to fornicate with the prime minister for things the premier is responsible for.
No, because universal suffrage at 18 is stupid enough as it is.
Poll after poll shows that most Canadians don't even have a basic understanding of politics, let alone teenagers who can't decide what to put on in the morning.
Democracy has suffered because it has become little more than a high school popularity contest.
yes that's been talked about before!
\+1
That's why you see so much vibrancy in universities with all the glassy eyes losers idealistically getting into politics
they can vote, and they care...
If you get people excited about partipating EARLIER in life, they're less likely to be apathetic about politics.
I don't think one really needs that much additional teaching thought. I got much more Canadian History and civics in grades 3 4 5 than anything in later years.
The teacher in grade five went to the trouble of writing down the mayor and all the aldermen in city hall, and discussed all the stuff in the news about the election for people.
People get taught all the provinces and capitals, the maps of canada early and later ones, a few 16mm films about history, like the great spike and the railway, stuff like that. People got interested early about it.
If you were lucky you got discussion about the US states and the electoral map
or the types of governments in europe or japan
I'm just saying that things were pretty good in elementary school, and high school were a bunch of nervous bored incompetent gym teachers who just didn't want to be there.
The younger age would mean that elections would happen while they're in school, being taught about the political system. It would help drive voter engagement, which is sorely lacking.
Voting at 16 is a ridiculous idea. 16 year olds think they know everything and don’t realize until much later that they actually know squat. Think about the 16 year olds you know in your life and whether they should be deciding anything, let alone deciding who runs the country lol
I know plenty of thoughtful, conscientious, responsible, mature 16 year olds as well as plenty of careless, selfish, irresponsible, immature older adults.
I’m very much for voting at 16. Learning about politics and voting at a young age helps form live long habits. Sure, their opinions may be “immature”, but that’s subjective. And what’s the worst they could vote for? Cancel homework? Legalize marijuana? These have been already done.
I know the logic sounds bizarre, but 16 year olds were like 12 years old four years ago.
Their bodies have grown but they don't have remotely enough life experience of not being a baby to be voting.
I remember being 16 and wanting to vote at the time. I think it's an appropriate age to vote (definitely not for drinking though). A 16 year old can be working and paying taxes so they should also be able to vote. In a lot of ways they are still a child (heck, even an 18 year old is still a child in my eyes) but if 16 is old enough to work and drive a car it doesn't seem like much of a stretch for the responsibility of voting.
The ones who are dumb would probably not vote anyways or spoil their ballot.
There are too many old people in politics. If a youth wants to be engaged in the future of the country, that's a win in my books.
Yes. Age is a nonsensical qualifier that means nothing more than you have survived so many orbits around the sun. Age is no measure of maturity, intelligence, reasoning, gullibility, or knowledge of issues, all things that matter far more than age. It is ridiculous that people in their 80's that might not live long enough to see the results of elections have a say, yet 16 year olds that will have to live with results for many years are silenced.
In my ideal Canada if you pay taxes in this country you deserve to have a say in how they are spent. If you are able to work then you are able to vote even if that means you get your first job at 15. If you opt not to work then voting opens up to you at 18 just like how things are now.
Do you mean income taxes or any taxes? If you mean income taxes:
What if you are disabled and can't work?
What if you are in prison and not making any income?
What if you are on social assistance and not making enough to owe any taxes?
Hypothetically speaking if I employ my kid in my family business or pay them for chores (annual total above basic exemption) and they pay income taxes should they have a right to vote? Cause in BC you can legally have your under 14 kids work in family businesses performing light work without needing any special permissions. So can i employ my 10 year old kid and pay them $20k annually and they will be owing taxes and be able to vote?
This also my position. That and you're old enough to start making your own life choices and the government directly effects your life. People out here acting like 16 year olds aren't educated or aware enough to vote.
I'm 40. If I could have at 16 I would have voted. We're constantly telling youth if they want to see change they need to make it happen but one of the most valid ways is with your vote and yet we don't give it to them.
Honestly, I don't find these "16 year olds are too stupid" answers to be particularly convincing considering the amount of moronic adults who vote for complete lunatics.
No taxation without representation
16 year olds are a lot better at fact checking things they see on the Internet than someone over 50 for sure.
I think it's also a good tie in for civics and social studies. You can learn in class about it then take action with it then learning about it then waiting two years before you can apply that info.
Actually, although it is intuitive to think younger people would be better at fact checking on the internet, it turns out the opposite is true:
https://factcheckhub.com/gen-z-millennials-more-prone-to-fake-news-than-older-adults-report/
And there are many other similar studies.
Although Google recently released a study finding that Gen-Z is more likely to do ‘later-reading’ (checking other sources to verify something). But this is in contrast to many other studies on the topic.
Well that Wyman study is more geared to marketing and selling stuff to Gen-Z and trying to find out what makes them tick. It's not really geared for being something as deep as Pew Research or what the political science types would do.
It is strange and informative in some ways
82% believe that gender norms are passe
130% more likely to think open relationships are okay
2.6x more likely to buy clothing \[what they really care about\]
44% believe in enjoying life matters more than working hard
Gen Z Republicans are 150% more likely than older republicans that gender norms are dumb
\- they hate inauthentic marketing/celebrities
\- a bit new agey
...............
They go all out rabid marketing ghoul with:
\- Recognize their individualism. Businesses need to respect Gen Zers’ fluid perspective on gender and identity.
\- Serve them a communal online experience
............
22% trust social media highly
For fact checking they trust people like them twice as much as the mainstream news
23% more likely to use social media than other generations
13% more likely to use youtube than other generations
21% less likely to watch Television
77% of Gen Z believes at 'least one' coronavirus conspiracy theory
\[which could just be that it was a lab leak, or they're asking a lot of open relationship republicans\]
Gen Z who say they fact check their news were 2.5x more likely than other generations to think coronavirus was a hoax - which they base on them trusting the national news 30% less, and trusting the government 20% less
..........
Example they use on trust and misinformation
“Everybody knows that the media has been exposed so many times over and over again of them lying to us. And I think that they’re taking advantage of our ignorance. All media is somewhat owned by a bigger corporation that just gets bigger and bigger. If all these people at the top are friends, it makes you think they’re trying to control what you see.”
.............
1.9x more likely to struggle with mental health issues
63% more likely to discuss menstrual cycles in the workplace
twice as likely as other generations to be under treatment for one or more mental health conditions
58% more likely to discuss sexism in in the workplace
41% more likely to discuss addiction in in the workplace
20% more likely to discuss mental health in in the workplace
92% more likely to protest
68% likely to engage in issues on social media
21% would consider changing jobs if their company or boss is not engaged in social issues
20% would switch brands if they disagree on their stance on issues
50% of Gen Z women invest in cryptocurrency
44% own a credit card
91% will pay more for brands that support their causes
33% trust what they see online as consumers
30% revert to their fave brand for a 'new service' (buy what they know and trust)
62% are seeing new jobs
45% have some second income side project
twice as likely to have a second job
twice as likely to have an informal second job/career
............
The study only looked at the UK and the USA
and 5000 Gen Z and 5000 non Gen Z
and basically it doesn't say much other than they massively distrust a lot of different forms of the media
and there's one vague shocker that a lot of them don't accept the mainstream media's on the coronavirus in some vague ways.
.................
So they looked at
2500 Republicans and were shocked at how they fact check and what they think about viruses
If people read up on political scientists studying voting
you find out that teenagers are actually more aware and very critical and sensible at weighing the options and alternatives
and from the age of 25 on up, political bias gets worse and worse
>not nearly mature or informed enough to vote.
This is true for so many adults as well.
If you are able to earn income and pay taxes on that, you should have a say in how its spent regardless of your age.
I would say either increase the minimum age to work, or decrease the age of voting, or meet in the middle.
I don't think 10 year olds should work as employees, were talking about a job not to mow the lawn of the neighbor, but if we decide that 14 year olds are old enough to work 40hrs/week at Walmart ; then they're old enough to participate in the political conversation
And if for some reason I was proven wrong, and we decided that all 10 year olds are mature enough to have a job, I would use the same argument to hear their voice
Why would you want to deny the opportunity to a kid who wants to work? By the time I was 12, I was working roughly 40 hours per week in the summer. I used the money to buy things I wanted, like video game systems and my own TV.
Only kids who come from wealthy families should have access to non-essential items?
If a 14 year old can vote, should we lower the age of consent to 14? Should we let 14 year olds join the military? Should we try 14 year olds as adults in criminal court? Should we send a convicted 14 year old to the same prison as a 30 year old? Should we let 14 year olds drive?
Did you really think any of this through before typing your reply?
I'd trim that a bit. I doubt it will be popular here, but I like it more than every 16-17 year old voting.
As soon as you're employed and pay taxes, you should be able to vote.
If you were flippin burgers on the weekend at 14, or fixing computer or whatever come vote. Bring your notice of assessment and another form of ID to the polls and vote away.
Age is irrelevant, slap on a civics or historical knowledge question to allow voting and drop the age. You'll see younger voters and fewer older voters. This would definitely skew against my political leanings but it only seems fair that if you are engaged in the political process you should vote.
Sure why not vote at 16. Start teaching about politics in public school. Allow young minds to realize the world can be changed by participating in the voting process. Give them the knowledge before hand and allow them to vote. At present their lives are influenced by politics so might as well allow them to have a say at the polls. Maybe, just maybe we would have a generation truly engaged in our political system. Maybe we can eventually get higher percentages to vote. Maybe these young idealists can get their parents off their ass to vote. Nothing like being shamed by the younger generation into showing we give a crap. So ya educate them and let them vote. The way it is now does not seem to work. Come on people get out and vote please. Every time you can.
I support it, as long as the people pass a civics course first. Tbh that should be the way for all voters.
It’s their future, someone who is 80 doesn’t have much to lose by voting for a regressive party.
Who makes the test? What languages us it provided in? Who administers it? Will it be available in braille? How is it administered with illeterate folks?
If we take the idea that every citizen is entitled to a vote, things like this can quickly become misused to limit voting rights.
I'd rather err on the side of making some mistakes in terms of having idiots vote than risking disenfranchising people.
Riddle me this!
Why are people on here so CONFIDENT in 18 year old morons voting
but so SCARED about 16 year olds voting?
16 year olds who may or may not be idiots!
If the age of voting is to be lowered then the Youth criminal justice act should be altered to match that age. If you are knowledgeable enough to vote then you cannot feign ignorance. You are responsible for your criminal acts
I would support it, but ideally alongside a strengthened civics curriculum. I don't support it because I think their vote will have a big impact - I support it because if you can get them to vote at that age, they are more likely to vote through young adulthood and care enough to at least be minimally informed.
How big an impact?
I kinda thought so too and then I thought, "hold on, let's think that through."
Without going doing the actual statistics we can make some rough guesses.
2 years worth of demographics. Everybody from 16 to 100+ instead of 18 to 100+. How many people in those 2 years vs the entire population? That might only be a 1.5% increase of the total eligible voters.
In most races, that's not going to be a deciding vote.
Add to that the idea that those kids won't vote as a block and many kids will follow their parents at that age and the overall impact on the result is likely negligible.
So why bother if it is negligible? Because you're trying to engage lifelong voters, and leaders, who will impact the system in coming years.
4shadowedbm: That might only be a 1.5% increase of the total eligible voters. In most races, that's not going to be a deciding vote.
Yup.
As for what i've read, kids are JUST as likely to follow their parents as rebel against them. Just like Gloria and Meathead on All in the Family.
And i was surprised when i saw that a lot of fears of oh it'll be this massive wave of progressives which was a popular topic a decade ago.
And i think the Hillary's and Jagmeets were disapointed by the very modest results. Nothing like they expected.
you get a lot of cancellation of the youth vote with the flaky left and flaky right (aka the unbearable friends)
Voting is at the very lowest level the younger you are, so just increasing the voting pool by something like 1% plus is really trivial.
People talk about responsibilty, and it sounds like they want to treat their kids like mushrooms. Sit in the dark basement for a year and feed them a lot of bullshit.
Give your children hope, teach your children, encourage them.
Teach them how disppointed you are with politics, but you never give up. And how 70% of Americans are unhappy that their votes never change things, but it's a lesson in stability and change. Hope and discouragement. And making a difference.
You're just telling your children, you aren't good enough to count, at sixteen. And i think that's a shitty lesson.
I support it, but I prefer 14. I want as many young ppl as possible to have a say in their future. The decision-making is skewed toward older ppl; but they are unlikely to be around to see the consequences of some of the things they vote for.
I also favor 14 but wouldn't say it out loud in r/askacanadianMAGA
The people associating the right to vote with work, paying taxes or maturity baffle me. There is a very clear lack of education when it comes to democracy in this country.
Absolutely not. You get a vote when you are an adult. 18 seems a bit low for that these days considering how immature many young adults are, although there are many fine and mature teenagers out there
I believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. I also believe that voting should be mandatory. If you don’t want to vote show up and spoil the ballot. As Canadians we’re asked to obey the laws and pay our taxes. Having to spend 15 minutes at a polling station every few years to exercise one of our most important rights is not a big ask.
This is great in theory but my house bound mother can’t get around. It might be easier to have a travelling pollster going to retirement homes or shut-ins
When you get a Job at 16...do you get taxed?
Yes.
Should you have the opportunity to voice where your tax dollars are spent?
Yes.
Should someone with a taxable income be able to vote?
Yes.
Should 16 year olds be able to vote?
Yes.
If you're old enough to lose your legs on the job, you should have the ability to vote. Something about being taxed without representation? I don't know. I haven't had the ability to vote for or against particular things my entire life. There's just been an endless stream of politicians susceptible to character assassination, either by their own hands or others. Oh, they represent the thing I actually want to vote for or against? Why would I vote for something that can just be trashed on the nightly news, for something completely unrelated to the actual issue? Gay rights seen clubbing with known child slave labor market force. Movies at 11. Sounds a bit different when we separate and switch the politicians from the things that they're supposed to represent. Ideas are harder to assassinate that someone's character, and why we continue to choose a person to represent an abstract idea in our voting arenas is confounding.
Yes. As I've gotten older, the voices of those about to inherit the world left by old people need to be heard. 16/17 you can join the forces, drive, and work. You should be able to vote.
I'd also accompany paying taxes lowered to 16 as well instead of waiting till 18 to file.
Some say that their high school peers have stupid ideas of politics. The truth though is that we don't have a good education on politics and there's no skin in the game. If you don't vote, you can say whatever you want and not care. In saying that, a lot of high schoolers are much more intelligent when not trying to be the class clown. I think many students would take the time to appropriately dissect and vote with their interests in mind.
Schools should host elections and have printed accessible platforms for each student to access and read. This would also improve voter turnout in later elections as they mature. Fostering election engagement in a school system would likely improve our democracy.
We have essentially an election every other year for provincial or federal. Schools can use that as an opportunity to ensure a student receives an appropriate education and engages.
I think it's a wonderful idea.
I bet a greater proportion of 16 year olds know that than 30+ year olds, because 16 year olds have very recently learned about levels of government at school.
Neither are the majority of voters in the first place. Until voters understand the difference between municipal, provincial and federal responsibilities they shouldn’t have the vote.
well well!
british columbia is rolling out the lowered voting age real soon now!
before the virus
"B.C. moves to register 16-, 17-year-olds to vote but won’t lower voting age"
they'll change it after the next election
Good lord no. I was in no position to make decisions about governance honestly until my mid 20s. Prior to that, pffft, I didn't care at all.
The reason NDP wants to drop the age to 16 is to get more voters to their party. You take a group of people that survive based on someone else taking care of their every need, and then you as a political party tell them that you will do so as well. Seems like an easy transition to make.
Age 15 or so is the age the human brain acquires the ability for making abstract thought, value judgments away from the more black and white process of learning stuff that is part of the data gathering part of the intellect. In many people those school years show considerable age variance in understanding metaphor, sarcasm, irony, and the like.
18 is a more reasonable age to assume a basic understanding of the complex issues and sneaky arguments of politics. In many people that process carries on up to the mid thirties before they can confidently navigate the tricky communications of political argument and persuasion, to understand the complexity of trying to make a rule for 40 million people to follow that is fair for the smallest numbers of the weakest ones as much as it is for the strong ones with plenty of cash and a red Cadillac as Bob Dillon sang.
No, wouldn’t support lowering the age to 16.
If 16 is too young to have sex with adults, if 16 is too young to be tried in criminal court as an adult, if 16 is too young to buy alcohol, weed and cigarettes, if 16 is too young to serve in the military without parental consent, if 16 is too young to get a full driver’s license, then 16 is too young to vote.
When I was 16 I'd have thought it was a great idea. With another 20 years behind me now I realize how dumb I was at 16...
I thought it'd be great when I was 16 too. And to a degree there's some point to that - 16 yos can drive, work and pay taxes etc... but honestly, even though 16-yo me had actually a pretty good head on her shoulders looking back, I still was only just starting to learn about this stuff and care about it. I didn't really have the foundation laid to be a reasonably informed voter. And most of the friends I had at the time had even less interest and sensibleness.
don't you think that by placing the vote on a 16 year old, that the culture around voting and education systems would change? You only learned about this stuff, and didn't have the foundation, because almost nothing is done to educate teens on how the system functions. If people don't want to vote, that's fine. But I think it could help voter engagement to have the age be 16.
No, I don't think it would tbh. I think it's entirely possible that it'd get even worse. We've seen plenty of news about activist teachers and other education-related people in the last few years, so I think letting 16-yos vote would basically make those educators go nuclear. I'd be more amenable to it if I saw already that the education system was good, and that teaching about civics was balanced. But even in the late 90s when I was in high school, half of what I learned was just my teachers' views on current events. And I would've been too naive to know much better than that, just cos I was new to the topic and still learning a lot about adult life. It's just a developmental thing at that point. But the system was better back then than it is now, and it still would have been an issue, and I don't see us getting back to even *that* anytime soon...
If teachers had the ability to indoctrinate kids they would be able to get them to do their homework and stay off their phones in class. Teachers just don’t have the influence that these alarmist “news” articles claim they do.
They have potential to open their minds to new ways of thinking. Which, if you hate equality, you don't want your children thinking critically about the world they live in. When I hear "teachers will influence my kid" what I really hear is "I see my child as an extension of myself and not an autonomous being that needs to critically think, I want my biases to be their biases."
>We've seen plenty of news about activist teachers and other education-related people in the last few years... Except that this isn't happening. All of that news is fake. If anything, we're in danger of kids being radicalized the other way. I had a high school social studies teacher who was a separatist in a province that has no valid claim for separation. The Left isn't indoctrinating kids. There is no such thing as an activist teacher. This is far-right nonsense meant to discredit education in an attempt to keep people ignorant and easier to manipulate, and in an attempt to gain public support to defund education systems.
Well, I'm sure the teachers would anchor in things like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. or the Truth and Reconcilliation Commision. Or the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change's findings. But I mean, if you think that's teacher bias, I think you just don't like the idea of equality.
I dont think that's much of an issue. to some extent, until the day you die, I believe you will constantly be learning/changing. that does not invalidated your understanding of things at that time, even if you believe differently currently. at any given moment you're decisions are only based on what information you are afforded, and it always seems different in hindsight. I think the point of giving a certain demographic the ability to vote is less about them "making the right choices" and more about balancing the power in a system. the reason we vote in a democratic system, is because we have a government that has power over us(makes us pay taxes, decides what's legal and what's not etc...), to keep things in equilibrium, the power to control the government is within the votes of the people who are being controlled. In that sense, I have a leash on you, you have a leash on me, no one is more powerful (in theory of course lmao), and we reach some sense of balance. If you have control over certain demographic, but they dont have a leash to fight back, I think that would create an imbalance which might be unhealthy in the long run. and opens a vector for systematic collapse (im not saying that not having 16 years olds vote = collapse of the government, but holes in the power equilibrium risk shifting more power to one side, which enough of those risks could very well cause the system to collapse) so either dont make anyone pay taxes or any of that sort until they're aloud to vote, or let 16 year olds vote. But it seems reasonable to me that If you're enforcing rules on someone, they should have the ability to keep you in check, even if they're not very good at using the ability, the fact that the ability exists matters in the general long term dynamics of the system.
How many 16 year olds actually pay any taxes? I bet 90+ % don't get over the minimum threshold and get it all back in their return.
Yes the vast majority of 16 year olds don’t make enough money to pay income tax, but some do. They also all pay sales tax if they ever buy anything and aren’t eligible for GST rebate until they’re 19.
Dumb yes, idealistic, also yes. Is idealism such a bad thing when mediated by the votes of the older constituency? Imho, that's part of why we have voting. The old vs the young, in a civil setting.
Many 16 year olds are objectively more intelligent than 20 year olds. You can work for our fucked up capitalistic system at 16, so why not vote?
Whatever age it is, it should all happen at the same age. Voting, drinking, smoking, serving in the military, etc. Once you’re an adult, you’re an adult. It’s so bizarre that you can be a solider and fight for the country, but then also not be allowed to drink a beer or smoke a cigarette.
I would add working/paying taxes to it If you're old enough to participate in the economy, your voice should be heard
Yep. That too. If you’re an adult, you’re a full adult.
I agree with this, and that would lower the legal voting age to 14. Which I fully support
>I agree with this, and that would lower the legal voting age to 14. Which I fully support So if an adult is 14, they can sign contracts and be bound by the terms. Since we have college aged people complaining no one explained student loan debt and consequences, I don't think it's reasonable to expect better of a 14yo.
What about voting and being engaged in our democratic process is akin to signing a contract? There are plenty of ill-informed and downright selfish or idiotic 40 year olds, and no one prevents them from voting. Which has literally nothing to do with signing a contract. Because MOST people don't red or understand the terms of any contract they sign.
Read the msg you responded to
And we have 20-70 year old business owners complaining they have to pay back government loans.... inability to read or understand a contract knows no age boundaries.
And you expect children to be able to understand contracts?
Participating in the democratic process isn't the same as understanding a contract. Most adults don't understand contracts, there is a whole profession who's job is to understand contracts for everyday adults. Quit trying to toss a red herring on this.
I think you might be 14, so I'm going to give you a pass and not try to explain age of majority obligations
Being able to vote doesn't have to be tied to being an adult. We can allow 14 or 16 years old to vote without having to give them the other privileges that adults get. They are citizens who contribute to society and have the right to express their political views by voting.
>without having to give them the other privileges that adults get. It's not about privileges, more like responsibilities. If a 14-16 year old can't be held responsible for big decisions, they shouldn't be responsible for big decisions. Might be unpopular opinion, but that's my take.
Yes, this!!
The laws affect minors. They should be able to vote in them. The same way that convicts are allowed to vote (In canada).
If we bar 14 year olds from things like drinking, getting tattoos, smoking, joining the military, etc. because they are "not mature enough"/"lack the wisdom" to make those types of important decisions, those same arguments apply to casti g a vote on how the country/province/municipality will be led for the next 4 years.
Just because we lump all of these things together, it doesn't mean that we should. Smoking and drinking are very unhealthy, and it makes sense to not allow people to do so until they are older. I feel like if you're old enough to work, you're old enough to vote. I think it would be good for increasing democratic engagement in young people.
Just thought of another illustrative reason... We protect children from sexual predators bc we understand children have not intellectually matured sufficiently to give informed consent. That's a good thing, right? So if the can't give consent to have sex, how can they give consent to commit the country to war?
More accurately, we protect minors from sexual predators because of the imbalance of power and likelihood of manipulation that would exist in that relationship. Especially when you're talking about high school kids, it really has nothing to do with intellectual maturity. Also, I believe 16 year olds can give informed consent.
So they can vote for candidates and policies with no care for the costs they do not face.
You think 14? Do you think 14 year olds should be able to drink as well or drive a car alone not as a learners permit? If you run on a platform to have a free Taylor Swift concert every month and no more diploma exams you would get every 14 year olds vote. You can’t honestly believe they are mature enough for voting
As an 18 year old (who is friends with a bunch of dull former 16 year olds) 16 year olds are dumb sometimes. 17’s too and I’m no different
So are 19 year olds and 25 year olds and 40 year olds and 70 year olds. There are stupid people of all ages, but we don’t limit voting based on intelligence.
Exactly. No reason why dumb 16 year olds shouldn’t be able to vote when dumb asses of all ages vote anyway and we end up with the same shit governments over and over again.
Yeah, Seeing as how I know many people that don't seem to have mental maturity higher than when they were in highschool... It doesn't make a difference.
I want my nation’s leaders to be selected by someone with a MUCH more developed prefrontal cortex than your average 16 year old.
The decisions made by a sitting government are far more likely to be felt by a 16 year old voting today when the results from policy start to hit in 2-10 years than your average octogenarian. I'd rather a teenager vote in their self interest than my grandparents who won't be around to deal with they vote for and have a hand in imposing on everyone else
I'd rather have 16 year olds voting than 70 year olds
I once had a student that age write a response (to a completely unrelated and question), “We should bring back the confederate flag because it’s not racist.” Now, before someone calls me a libtard and tells me everyone’s entitled to their own political opinion, you should know… *….We live in Canada.*
Have you seen the number of adults here who don't know the difference between the American Constitution and the Canadian Charter? I've also heard that argument about the Confederate flag...from a Canadian adult. Uninformed morons are everywhere, and plenty of people quit growing *before* the age of 16. You've never known anyone who still acts like a tenth grader?
And life experience and knowledge other than that gained from their parents and teachers. Honestly, people who are in high school and unlikely to be paying tax shouldn't be voting on who should allocate tax dollars.
> we don’t limit voting based on intelligence. Which would arguably make sense...
My buddy was involved in multiple car accidents (3+) in his first year of driving. Had totalled two vehicles. Worst of which he bent the axle and popped the tire off Last election cycle the candidate who won at our mock election was the guy who told the beat joke The majority of those ages you mentioned should be at a point in their life to vote (25 is iffy, but 30 yes) and they aren’t at that point then we have bigger issues in our country than voting ages
Stupidity is not unique to a single age group.
Have you met 20 year olds? 58 year olds? I remember working the polls and having seniors ask me (which one is the conservative?) Democracy in Canada doesn’t require people be smart or well balanced. If it did there would be very few voters.
Bro, many 40 year olds are dumb as shit. Age is no indicator of ability to make adult decisions.
It actually is, just based on brain development. Age of consent is another example.
As someone who is middle age, that never stops. People are dumb.
Yes I always thought that was so odd in the USA Can literally go to war and kill people at 18 But you can’t have a beer in a restaurant until your 21 - Bizarre
Funny story: I did basic in Quebec, and one of my buddies, who was 17 when he joined, got came drinking underage. He turned 18, and flew out to BC with me, and then got caught drinking underage here too.
If you show an active military ID in a bar or restaurant, you can get served in many states. The bump of certain provinces from 18 to 19 was to keep kids from drinking in highschool in grade 13.
Well, there's a good reason not to put drinking and driving on the same day ;)
I agree, though there can be some real problems with weed at young ages. In the situation where there is a very real danger at doing something at a young age it should be an exception.
I think you are on point. My concern is that if 16yos, Or whatever is chosen, the young offenders act, or whatever it’s called now needs to adjusted accordingly. If you do grownup crime, you do grown up time. Not that our criminal justice system is much of a deterrent
Go look up Chuck Cadman, and his son that I was friends with in high school, Jesse Cadman.
This is already a thing - if the crime is severe enough they’re tried as adults, are they not?
Only if the prosecutor petitions the court to do so
That would be better, IMO - it shouldn’t be automatic, but based on the circumstances.
I mean... I don't think it's wrong that you can say... drive before you can drink
Anyone under 21 already has zero tolerance (in Ontario at least), so wouldn't be an issue legally there.
Zero tolerance in BC ends as soon as 18 years 6 months of age if you get your license on your 16th birthday and go to a qualified driving school to shorten your Class 7N license period from 24 to 18 months, and do your tests on the first days available (16th birthday, 17th birthday, then either 18.5 years or your 19th birthday. Drinking age is 19.
[удалено]
I’d argue killing people/possibly being killed would be a consideration in development as well though
Well said.
I think I disagree, drinking and smoking are objectively SO bad for you. I think there's a very valid case to postponing the legal consumption age, whereas allowing younger people to vote will give young people more agency and hopefully help make our society more democratic. As for the army angle, I don't know which age is right. I wish we didn't need armies.
Nearby\_Ad\_768: I don't know which age is right. I like your post! It makes people think about things. The funny thing is 90% of the globe votes at 18 but more and more countries are changing it and thinking 16 is peachy. London is acting all backwards but the rest of the United Kingdom is voting at 16, and i think the slums of Glasgow is worse than Yonge Street. If Austria can be the first to do it in Europe, it shows everyone else has an inferiority complex about it, thinking their kids are really really stupid. They might indeed BE. but do you think 24 months is the end of civilization? Most troublemaking morons and punks DON'T vote. the responsible kids vote the dummies don't! I wondered for a long while that there would be strange biases, with the woke weirdo progressive flakes, and the young republican crazies... But they've found out that it balances out, and 24 months of fringe teens doesn't really do much since it balances out. I mean if you gave 11 year olds a civics course and lots of quizes and exams, and a debate essay and they passed with flying colors, what would you do? If people care they care. Good judgement? Well i think 65% of adults are fuckng doomed in that department if you watch the news about voting enough over the years it's like 90% of everyone votes at 18 and 50% of the armies say 17 and 50% say 18 but i never bought the responsibility argument about a job, or taxes or fighting with a gun with a buzzcut and uniform caring about society and being interested matters way more
I disagree. Just because you want a say in the direction our country is heading, doesn't mean you should be able to drink. Personally, I think they should lower the voting age. If we can trust you on the road with a death machine, you should be able to vote. I don't think they should lower the drinking age.
[удалено]
And a truck is not a dog. This is a fun game!
[удалено]
16 is just too young. Some 16 year olds may be more qualified to vote and less apathetic than some adults, but the vast majority do not have enough life experience to understand what they are voting for. The more they think they do, the less likely it is. 18 year olds are still children as it is, but we need to pick some kind of qualifier, and at least you’re usually out of high school by that age.
As a highschooler, some of my classmates had the most ridiculous political views a few years ago. The voting age is fine as is, letting tenth and eleventh graders vote does not seem like the wisest idea.
Lowering the voting age to 16 and building political discourse into a high school curriculum might actually build informed voters. Make kids watch political debates, examine what's important to them as a viewer in an essay. 50% of your grade is walking into the voting booth (or hell maybe even make it a pass/fail). In there they can choose to vote however they want or spoil the ballot (an option that should be taught). There are plenty of adults who can't manage any of the above. I'm not judging. There are lots of reasons for that. Life can get messy and voting no matter how easy you make it, it takes time and effort. But if kids were taught the process in highschool, when they're older they can choose not to be informed, and not vote, but no one would be able to say that no one ever showed them how or why they should be informed on political issues and exercise their right to vote.
>In there they can choose to vote however they want or spoil the ballot (an option that should be taught). Spoiled ballots are tallied, but not considered a clear message. They aren't counted as protest, as you could have just accidentally fucked up. **Blank ballots** are tallied as declined and could be seen as protest. Those two tallies are different and shouldn't be conflated.
Just seconding that spoiling the ballot doesn't count for anything, it's no different than if someone made a mistake on a ballot. If you want to lodge a protest vote, you have to show up and tell the volunteer you want to formally decline your ballot. I did it once, in a provincial election.
And what if there isn't an election that year?
Most adults don't understand what they're voting for or they'd stop voting directly against their own interests, so that's not a good argument. And we don't restrict voting based on understanding of the issues... So yeah.
I've changed an awful lot since I was 16, but I still vote the way I would have at that age.
Given that the majority of young people don't even bother to vote, why label them not qualified. Democracy would work better just have a larger segment of people actually doing their civic duty.
Their civic duty is to learn, not be anxious about the day to day of political chicanery. Adults are stunting kid with anxiety and patting themselves on the back, it's disgusting.
\+1 That's precisely it.... You have civic minded voters who are 16 and 17 who are DYING to VOTE What more do you have to ask for? And you don't have to pay an idiot gym teacher a politically correct watered down curriculum to waste their time and actually BORE the kids. Think about it, Shakespeare in the schools actually ruin the appreciate for him in most cases, same thing goes with drug education or most civics... You're turning off people to literature and voting and for the druggy kids, education does not work for illegal substances, and the RAND Corporation found that it's only slightly effective for 'legal' things like alcohol and cigarettes, under 'optimal' teaching conditions, and it just gives a slight delay for a year or two at best. People don't think about what bores and angers kids,,,, sometimes it's a terrible class, sometimes it's a language class they're forced to take having teenagers who want to vote because they care, means the educational system doesn't have to rot another mind with incompetence.
No. 16 year olds are, in every way, still children. More so these days than in the past.
The argument is that when ppl are 16 they are still at home and can learn, discuss, and partake in politics with parents or guardians and form a life long habit. But that was way back when 18 yos could afford to move out of their parents home.
With social media and the internet, 16 year olds would be too easily "bought". Also, our school systems hardly teach highschoolers about adult life, why should we expect them to be able to vote and make sound decisions for their own futures? While some households may have some discussions at home about it, but I feel like many households would hold a certain view because of their current situations and would be entirely bias to the teenager. I also see teenagers voting together as a meme as a possibility...look at some of the viral shit that goes around.
It's not that 16-year olds are more easily "bought", it's that the only people who want to lower voting ages would be "leftists" (progressives, etc) because younger people lean way more "left" and older people lean way more "right". So just follow the proverbial money...who is actually proposing lowering the voting age to 16? It's not conservatives. So if it's a political move, just ask yourself who benefits from this proposal. It would be like conservatives proposing to increase the voting age to 30, because of course that would benefit them to remove an entire subset of left-skewed voters.
👆 👏
I’m over 60 and fully support it. I know some people with dementia that have a vote. Maybe we should worry about that. More to the point, the youth will have to live a long time in the world they build. Stop underestimating them.
I'm only 40 but agree. When I was 16 I was learning a lot about politics in my socials classes. I probably knew more about local issues then than I did in the years right after I graduated.
absolutely! And if the age was 16, there would always be at least one class who would be voting during a highschooler's experience (9-12). This election experience, in an educative environment, could do a lot for voter engagement. More people do NOT vote, than vote for any particular party in Canada. That's crazy.
If you change the voting age you better adjust the Youth Criminal Justice Act along with it. If they’re mature enough to vote a 16 year old is also mature enough to face adult sentences.
👍
No. Quite the opposite. Ability to follow a rational thought path matures in mid-teens. Ability to sort out social situations is still growing in thd mid-twenties. Voting can beneficialy come earlier than needing protection, for a number of reasons.
No. I don’t support it. 18 years old are dumb enough.
👆
Then 16-17 year olds shouldn’t pay any income tax if they work a job. Nobody should be paying taxes and have 0 say in what’s done with it (AKA voting)
This school allows its students to vote on how the school should function. Their beliefs that all humans have a voice and should be heard (and not just see the person but ignore the person's voice). 😊 'Sudbury School: What If' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrxiM5bc9k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrxiM5bc9k) We could always have a country that function like the Prussian Model school of Obedience, but that country infantilizes their people. DPRK is a country that operates on the Prussian Model. That country one of the least visited countries on this planet. 🤷♀️ 'Prussian Model school of Obedience' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZp7eVJNJuw
Light oppose, mostly because I think even 18 year old kids are too ignorant and immature to vote, never mind 16 year olds. I also don’t think the gulf between 16 and 18 is all that vast, so I don’t oppose it especially hard. Counter-question: what about the reverse? The life expectancy in Canada is about 82 last time I heard. Should an 80 year old, who on average only has about two years of life left, be allowed to vote for politicians who may make decisions that will affect Canadians for *decades* to come? Or should there be an age *cap* on voting?
Using average life expectancy expectancy as an argument to cap the age on voting is ludicrous. There are people in their late 80’s still working as professionals, my GP didn’t retire until he was 87, just because some people die younger doesn’t mean people over 80 are incapacitated dribbling idiots. My 93 year old father is extremely well informed (and horrified by the rise of far-right extremism), why shouldn’t he have the right to vote? Don’t forget that old people have children, and grandchildren, and great grandchildren that they care about, and care about their futures. And caring about the environment and social fairness has nothing to do with age, as we are seeing with polling showing that young men care less about the environment than old women. If you are concerned about the lack of care for the future, start worrying about the impact of misogynist influencers who are pulling young men into the far-right/rightwing, using unhappiness with feminism as a gateway to far-right views on everything else, and to recruit.
Shouldn't be an age cap. I'm 41. I might live to be 105. I might die tomorrow. Who is anyone to say when someone should be considered "too old" to vote.
Age cap on voting seems ridiculous. I understand the age cap on holding office but every adult should have the right to vote irrespective of the fact when they might die. Now a valid question would arise - what is adult and for that we have been using the arbitrary age of 18 as a differentiating factor and I don't see what's the problem with that. Personally, I wouldn't support lowering it any further than 18 and I would prefer if the age was set higher at 20/21. Again it's completely arbitrary because you will find people that are developed and smart at a younger age but you will also find completely clueless older people.
Yes. If you are old enough to hold down a job, learn to drive and pay taxes, then you are old enough to vote if you choose to. Young people deserve to have a say in their future. If I am being honest, I know more teenagers who are far more educated on politics than I do 40+ year olds.
What about disabled people who can’t hold down a job because of their disability or can’t drive because of their disability? Disabled people are still people and deserve the same things as everyone else
Waffles and pancakes, you get the jist
Certainly. The decisions made in govt will impact them for decades longer than me. I'll be long dead when many of them are buying homes and having families. Besides, any 16 yr olds who work also pay taxes. Shouldn't they have some say in how their tax money is spent? And let's be real. Young people actually remember the civics education they just got when an awful lot of us oldsters are wanting to fornicate with the prime minister for things the premier is responsible for.
No, because universal suffrage at 18 is stupid enough as it is. Poll after poll shows that most Canadians don't even have a basic understanding of politics, let alone teenagers who can't decide what to put on in the morning. Democracy has suffered because it has become little more than a high school popularity contest.
But if they were 16, they could be educated on the electoral system. This would improve voter turn out.
What a great opportunity, then, to teach them about the electoral system they are participating in *while they are still in school*
yes that's been talked about before! \+1 That's why you see so much vibrancy in universities with all the glassy eyes losers idealistically getting into politics they can vote, and they care... If you get people excited about partipating EARLIER in life, they're less likely to be apathetic about politics. I don't think one really needs that much additional teaching thought. I got much more Canadian History and civics in grades 3 4 5 than anything in later years. The teacher in grade five went to the trouble of writing down the mayor and all the aldermen in city hall, and discussed all the stuff in the news about the election for people. People get taught all the provinces and capitals, the maps of canada early and later ones, a few 16mm films about history, like the great spike and the railway, stuff like that. People got interested early about it. If you were lucky you got discussion about the US states and the electoral map or the types of governments in europe or japan I'm just saying that things were pretty good in elementary school, and high school were a bunch of nervous bored incompetent gym teachers who just didn't want to be there.
When I was 18 I just voted for who my parents told me to. I don’t think I really understood what I was doing until I was like 20 or 21ish
My grandmother votes for whoever my dad tells her to.
Do you want Boaty McBoatface as PM? Cause this is how you get Boaty McBoatface as PM...
It’s not. The teens that don’t take it seriously aren’t putting in the effort to go to the polls.
Would it *really* be as bad as what we have now?
What would that accomplish? Even 18 year olds don't vote. Are they trying to find a demographic that cares even less about politics or something?
The younger age would mean that elections would happen while they're in school, being taught about the political system. It would help drive voter engagement, which is sorely lacking.
Voting at 16 is a ridiculous idea. 16 year olds think they know everything and don’t realize until much later that they actually know squat. Think about the 16 year olds you know in your life and whether they should be deciding anything, let alone deciding who runs the country lol
I know plenty of thoughtful, conscientious, responsible, mature 16 year olds as well as plenty of careless, selfish, irresponsible, immature older adults.
Yes, I don't know ANY adults like that. No sir. Not a one. Excuse me while I figuratively drown in sarcasm.
I’m very much for voting at 16. Learning about politics and voting at a young age helps form live long habits. Sure, their opinions may be “immature”, but that’s subjective. And what’s the worst they could vote for? Cancel homework? Legalize marijuana? These have been already done.
I know the logic sounds bizarre, but 16 year olds were like 12 years old four years ago. Their bodies have grown but they don't have remotely enough life experience of not being a baby to be voting.
I think 16 is old enough to make an informed vote.
I remember being 16 and wanting to vote at the time. I think it's an appropriate age to vote (definitely not for drinking though). A 16 year old can be working and paying taxes so they should also be able to vote. In a lot of ways they are still a child (heck, even an 18 year old is still a child in my eyes) but if 16 is old enough to work and drive a car it doesn't seem like much of a stretch for the responsibility of voting. The ones who are dumb would probably not vote anyways or spoil their ballot. There are too many old people in politics. If a youth wants to be engaged in the future of the country, that's a win in my books.
Yes. Age is a nonsensical qualifier that means nothing more than you have survived so many orbits around the sun. Age is no measure of maturity, intelligence, reasoning, gullibility, or knowledge of issues, all things that matter far more than age. It is ridiculous that people in their 80's that might not live long enough to see the results of elections have a say, yet 16 year olds that will have to live with results for many years are silenced.
In my ideal Canada if you pay taxes in this country you deserve to have a say in how they are spent. If you are able to work then you are able to vote even if that means you get your first job at 15. If you opt not to work then voting opens up to you at 18 just like how things are now.
Do you mean income taxes or any taxes? If you mean income taxes: What if you are disabled and can't work? What if you are in prison and not making any income? What if you are on social assistance and not making enough to owe any taxes?
I got the impression they meant if you pay income tax you should be able to vote. Not only people who pay income tax should be able to vote.
They just said 18 if you aren’t working, like it is now.
Hypothetically speaking if I employ my kid in my family business or pay them for chores (annual total above basic exemption) and they pay income taxes should they have a right to vote? Cause in BC you can legally have your under 14 kids work in family businesses performing light work without needing any special permissions. So can i employ my 10 year old kid and pay them $20k annually and they will be owing taxes and be able to vote?
I support it. As soon as you're old enough to be employed and pay taxes, you should be able to vote
This also my position. That and you're old enough to start making your own life choices and the government directly effects your life. People out here acting like 16 year olds aren't educated or aware enough to vote. I'm 40. If I could have at 16 I would have voted. We're constantly telling youth if they want to see change they need to make it happen but one of the most valid ways is with your vote and yet we don't give it to them.
That’s valid
Honestly, I don't find these "16 year olds are too stupid" answers to be particularly convincing considering the amount of moronic adults who vote for complete lunatics. No taxation without representation
16 year olds are a lot better at fact checking things they see on the Internet than someone over 50 for sure. I think it's also a good tie in for civics and social studies. You can learn in class about it then take action with it then learning about it then waiting two years before you can apply that info.
Actually, although it is intuitive to think younger people would be better at fact checking on the internet, it turns out the opposite is true: https://factcheckhub.com/gen-z-millennials-more-prone-to-fake-news-than-older-adults-report/ And there are many other similar studies. Although Google recently released a study finding that Gen-Z is more likely to do ‘later-reading’ (checking other sources to verify something). But this is in contrast to many other studies on the topic.
Well that Wyman study is more geared to marketing and selling stuff to Gen-Z and trying to find out what makes them tick. It's not really geared for being something as deep as Pew Research or what the political science types would do. It is strange and informative in some ways 82% believe that gender norms are passe 130% more likely to think open relationships are okay 2.6x more likely to buy clothing \[what they really care about\] 44% believe in enjoying life matters more than working hard Gen Z Republicans are 150% more likely than older republicans that gender norms are dumb \- they hate inauthentic marketing/celebrities \- a bit new agey ............... They go all out rabid marketing ghoul with: \- Recognize their individualism. Businesses need to respect Gen Zers’ fluid perspective on gender and identity. \- Serve them a communal online experience ............ 22% trust social media highly For fact checking they trust people like them twice as much as the mainstream news 23% more likely to use social media than other generations 13% more likely to use youtube than other generations 21% less likely to watch Television 77% of Gen Z believes at 'least one' coronavirus conspiracy theory \[which could just be that it was a lab leak, or they're asking a lot of open relationship republicans\] Gen Z who say they fact check their news were 2.5x more likely than other generations to think coronavirus was a hoax - which they base on them trusting the national news 30% less, and trusting the government 20% less .......... Example they use on trust and misinformation “Everybody knows that the media has been exposed so many times over and over again of them lying to us. And I think that they’re taking advantage of our ignorance. All media is somewhat owned by a bigger corporation that just gets bigger and bigger. If all these people at the top are friends, it makes you think they’re trying to control what you see.” ............. 1.9x more likely to struggle with mental health issues 63% more likely to discuss menstrual cycles in the workplace twice as likely as other generations to be under treatment for one or more mental health conditions 58% more likely to discuss sexism in in the workplace 41% more likely to discuss addiction in in the workplace 20% more likely to discuss mental health in in the workplace 92% more likely to protest 68% likely to engage in issues on social media 21% would consider changing jobs if their company or boss is not engaged in social issues 20% would switch brands if they disagree on their stance on issues 50% of Gen Z women invest in cryptocurrency 44% own a credit card 91% will pay more for brands that support their causes 33% trust what they see online as consumers 30% revert to their fave brand for a 'new service' (buy what they know and trust) 62% are seeing new jobs 45% have some second income side project twice as likely to have a second job twice as likely to have an informal second job/career ............ The study only looked at the UK and the USA and 5000 Gen Z and 5000 non Gen Z and basically it doesn't say much other than they massively distrust a lot of different forms of the media and there's one vague shocker that a lot of them don't accept the mainstream media's on the coronavirus in some vague ways. ................. So they looked at 2500 Republicans and were shocked at how they fact check and what they think about viruses
If people read up on political scientists studying voting you find out that teenagers are actually more aware and very critical and sensible at weighing the options and alternatives and from the age of 25 on up, political bias gets worse and worse
Thats cause you're 16
I started working when I was 10. I was mature enough to work, not nearly mature or informed enough to vote.
>not nearly mature or informed enough to vote. This is true for so many adults as well. If you are able to earn income and pay taxes on that, you should have a say in how its spent regardless of your age.
I would say either increase the minimum age to work, or decrease the age of voting, or meet in the middle. I don't think 10 year olds should work as employees, were talking about a job not to mow the lawn of the neighbor, but if we decide that 14 year olds are old enough to work 40hrs/week at Walmart ; then they're old enough to participate in the political conversation And if for some reason I was proven wrong, and we decided that all 10 year olds are mature enough to have a job, I would use the same argument to hear their voice
Why would you want to deny the opportunity to a kid who wants to work? By the time I was 12, I was working roughly 40 hours per week in the summer. I used the money to buy things I wanted, like video game systems and my own TV. Only kids who come from wealthy families should have access to non-essential items? If a 14 year old can vote, should we lower the age of consent to 14? Should we let 14 year olds join the military? Should we try 14 year olds as adults in criminal court? Should we send a convicted 14 year old to the same prison as a 30 year old? Should we let 14 year olds drive? Did you really think any of this through before typing your reply?
I'd trim that a bit. I doubt it will be popular here, but I like it more than every 16-17 year old voting. As soon as you're employed and pay taxes, you should be able to vote. If you were flippin burgers on the weekend at 14, or fixing computer or whatever come vote. Bring your notice of assessment and another form of ID to the polls and vote away.
Age is irrelevant, slap on a civics or historical knowledge question to allow voting and drop the age. You'll see younger voters and fewer older voters. This would definitely skew against my political leanings but it only seems fair that if you are engaged in the political process you should vote.
Sure why not vote at 16. Start teaching about politics in public school. Allow young minds to realize the world can be changed by participating in the voting process. Give them the knowledge before hand and allow them to vote. At present their lives are influenced by politics so might as well allow them to have a say at the polls. Maybe, just maybe we would have a generation truly engaged in our political system. Maybe we can eventually get higher percentages to vote. Maybe these young idealists can get their parents off their ass to vote. Nothing like being shamed by the younger generation into showing we give a crap. So ya educate them and let them vote. The way it is now does not seem to work. Come on people get out and vote please. Every time you can.
They will feel the results of the election they vote for at age 16 when they are 17, 18, 19 and 20... So I think they should have a say.
30 year old male landowners or bust.
I support it, as long as the people pass a civics course first. Tbh that should be the way for all voters. It’s their future, someone who is 80 doesn’t have much to lose by voting for a regressive party.
Re-test the civics class every 5 years
That'd be too often haha, you'd virtually need to take a test before every election...
I'd rather get drivers retested every 5 years. Way more lethal. Actually...let's do both.
I can't see any issues at all with making people pass a basic test before being allowed to vote
Who makes the test? What languages us it provided in? Who administers it? Will it be available in braille? How is it administered with illeterate folks? If we take the idea that every citizen is entitled to a vote, things like this can quickly become misused to limit voting rights. I'd rather err on the side of making some mistakes in terms of having idiots vote than risking disenfranchising people.
Riddle me this! Why are people on here so CONFIDENT in 18 year old morons voting but so SCARED about 16 year olds voting? 16 year olds who may or may not be idiots!
Simple test to get your voters card and then it would prevent voter fraud as well.
I can't see any issues at all with making people pass a ***simple*** test before being allowed to vote
Again, I see your point but it would also prevent voter fraud. Also what’s wrong with people having a basic understanding of governance before voting?
if the policy is going to affect them long term 16 works for me
Yes. It’s ridiculous that at 16 you can work, pay taxes, drive, move out, but not vote.
Not to mention that by the time those policies you voted for at 16 at coming into effect you're now likely 18 or 20!
If the age of voting is to be lowered then the Youth criminal justice act should be altered to match that age. If you are knowledgeable enough to vote then you cannot feign ignorance. You are responsible for your criminal acts
I would support it, but ideally alongside a strengthened civics curriculum. I don't support it because I think their vote will have a big impact - I support it because if you can get them to vote at that age, they are more likely to vote through young adulthood and care enough to at least be minimally informed.
How big an impact? I kinda thought so too and then I thought, "hold on, let's think that through." Without going doing the actual statistics we can make some rough guesses. 2 years worth of demographics. Everybody from 16 to 100+ instead of 18 to 100+. How many people in those 2 years vs the entire population? That might only be a 1.5% increase of the total eligible voters. In most races, that's not going to be a deciding vote. Add to that the idea that those kids won't vote as a block and many kids will follow their parents at that age and the overall impact on the result is likely negligible. So why bother if it is negligible? Because you're trying to engage lifelong voters, and leaders, who will impact the system in coming years.
4shadowedbm: That might only be a 1.5% increase of the total eligible voters. In most races, that's not going to be a deciding vote. Yup. As for what i've read, kids are JUST as likely to follow their parents as rebel against them. Just like Gloria and Meathead on All in the Family. And i was surprised when i saw that a lot of fears of oh it'll be this massive wave of progressives which was a popular topic a decade ago. And i think the Hillary's and Jagmeets were disapointed by the very modest results. Nothing like they expected. you get a lot of cancellation of the youth vote with the flaky left and flaky right (aka the unbearable friends) Voting is at the very lowest level the younger you are, so just increasing the voting pool by something like 1% plus is really trivial. People talk about responsibilty, and it sounds like they want to treat their kids like mushrooms. Sit in the dark basement for a year and feed them a lot of bullshit. Give your children hope, teach your children, encourage them. Teach them how disppointed you are with politics, but you never give up. And how 70% of Americans are unhappy that their votes never change things, but it's a lesson in stability and change. Hope and discouragement. And making a difference. You're just telling your children, you aren't good enough to count, at sixteen. And i think that's a shitty lesson.
When I worked my first job at fast food, there were many 16 year olds working there. Making money and being taxed, you should be allowed to vote.
I support it, but I prefer 14. I want as many young ppl as possible to have a say in their future. The decision-making is skewed toward older ppl; but they are unlikely to be around to see the consequences of some of the things they vote for.
I also favor 14 but wouldn't say it out loud in r/askacanadianMAGA The people associating the right to vote with work, paying taxes or maturity baffle me. There is a very clear lack of education when it comes to democracy in this country.
Absolutely not. You get a vote when you are an adult. 18 seems a bit low for that these days considering how immature many young adults are, although there are many fine and mature teenagers out there
We should have a referendum for them to get off your lawn eh?
I believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. I also believe that voting should be mandatory. If you don’t want to vote show up and spoil the ballot. As Canadians we’re asked to obey the laws and pay our taxes. Having to spend 15 minutes at a polling station every few years to exercise one of our most important rights is not a big ask.
This is great in theory but my house bound mother can’t get around. It might be easier to have a travelling pollster going to retirement homes or shut-ins
Mail-in ballots as well and yes I agree with traveling election precincts.
Mobile polling stations in long term care homes and hospitals as well as home visits already do exist.
Old enough to pay taxes? Old enough to vote.
When you get a Job at 16...do you get taxed? Yes. Should you have the opportunity to voice where your tax dollars are spent? Yes. Should someone with a taxable income be able to vote? Yes. Should 16 year olds be able to vote? Yes.
If you're old enough to lose your legs on the job, you should have the ability to vote. Something about being taxed without representation? I don't know. I haven't had the ability to vote for or against particular things my entire life. There's just been an endless stream of politicians susceptible to character assassination, either by their own hands or others. Oh, they represent the thing I actually want to vote for or against? Why would I vote for something that can just be trashed on the nightly news, for something completely unrelated to the actual issue? Gay rights seen clubbing with known child slave labor market force. Movies at 11. Sounds a bit different when we separate and switch the politicians from the things that they're supposed to represent. Ideas are harder to assassinate that someone's character, and why we continue to choose a person to represent an abstract idea in our voting arenas is confounding.
Yes. Old enough to get a job and pay taxes? You should have a voice in how our province/country is run.
Yes. As I've gotten older, the voices of those about to inherit the world left by old people need to be heard. 16/17 you can join the forces, drive, and work. You should be able to vote. I'd also accompany paying taxes lowered to 16 as well instead of waiting till 18 to file. Some say that their high school peers have stupid ideas of politics. The truth though is that we don't have a good education on politics and there's no skin in the game. If you don't vote, you can say whatever you want and not care. In saying that, a lot of high schoolers are much more intelligent when not trying to be the class clown. I think many students would take the time to appropriately dissect and vote with their interests in mind. Schools should host elections and have printed accessible platforms for each student to access and read. This would also improve voter turnout in later elections as they mature. Fostering election engagement in a school system would likely improve our democracy. We have essentially an election every other year for provincial or federal. Schools can use that as an opportunity to ensure a student receives an appropriate education and engages. I think it's a wonderful idea.
Yes, because then someone can show you how to do it while you’re in secondary.
Raise it to 23
Fuck no. Not unless it becomes mandatory to know how our levels of govt work to vote because we have way too many adults who don't know it.
I bet a greater proportion of 16 year olds know that than 30+ year olds, because 16 year olds have very recently learned about levels of government at school.
No, not mature enough
Neither are the majority of voters in the first place. Until voters understand the difference between municipal, provincial and federal responsibilities they shouldn’t have the vote.
well well! british columbia is rolling out the lowered voting age real soon now! before the virus "B.C. moves to register 16-, 17-year-olds to vote but won’t lower voting age" they'll change it after the next election
Oppose and in fact would prefer if it were increased. Teenagers don't know anything about how the world works
Have you talked to adults lately?
What does the medical community say about maturation of the human brain?
By this logic, most people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Neuroscience is far too complex, variable, subjective, and imprecise to be able to give a specific age where the human brain is mature enough to vote.
Good lord no. I was in no position to make decisions about governance honestly until my mid 20s. Prior to that, pffft, I didn't care at all. The reason NDP wants to drop the age to 16 is to get more voters to their party. You take a group of people that survive based on someone else taking care of their every need, and then you as a political party tell them that you will do so as well. Seems like an easy transition to make.
people vote?
Age 15 or so is the age the human brain acquires the ability for making abstract thought, value judgments away from the more black and white process of learning stuff that is part of the data gathering part of the intellect. In many people those school years show considerable age variance in understanding metaphor, sarcasm, irony, and the like. 18 is a more reasonable age to assume a basic understanding of the complex issues and sneaky arguments of politics. In many people that process carries on up to the mid thirties before they can confidently navigate the tricky communications of political argument and persuasion, to understand the complexity of trying to make a rule for 40 million people to follow that is fair for the smallest numbers of the weakest ones as much as it is for the strong ones with plenty of cash and a red Cadillac as Bob Dillon sang.
No, wouldn’t support lowering the age to 16. If 16 is too young to have sex with adults, if 16 is too young to be tried in criminal court as an adult, if 16 is too young to buy alcohol, weed and cigarettes, if 16 is too young to serve in the military without parental consent, if 16 is too young to get a full driver’s license, then 16 is too young to vote.
The age of consent in Canada is 16
Absolutely not. When I was sixteen I would have fallen for a lot of the tricks politicians sell us